tv [untitled] August 24, 2013 1:30am-2:01am PDT
under the current rules as opposed to deferred. one might argue the original entitlement should be brought forth to current rules as well. that's probably a legal determination. thank you. sue hester. you have my letter from a week ago about this project, again about these fees. it's unusual. i don't think i have ever said i agree with robert her, the shorenstein group at the the same hearing. [laughter] i have history going back with robert shorenstein a long time. so, the noticing process really needs adjustment. if it's not broken already. if people that really are developers and paying attention
don't get any notice, i don't understand that. it's one thing for me not to get a notice. when people like that don't get a notice, i think you pay attention. i can just eat dirt. but apart from that what peter said is absolutely correct. you have the ability to not approve the projects. these are discretionary actions that you're being asked to do with discretionary actions comes discretion. i don't consider dbi to be the last word on fee deferral ~. does this commission have the ability to say, if you want something, you should give us something? part of it probably is you should give continuance to let
the neighbors become aware of the project. but you should also ask sales force -- sales force, really huge company. kill roy, really huge. these are billion dollar companies. why do we have to struggle with getting affordable housing money out of these people? it's one thing for the residential builders and people like that that are low developers coming before you and saying, really it's going to screw us up totally if we have to pay these fees in advance. if kill roy can say that with a straight face and sales force can say that with a straight face, i would roll over. they are not going to be broken by paying into affordable housing, but they're affecting the ability of affordable housing developers to build affordable housing.
so, i would say ask the city attorney. exercise your discretion, and your discretion is if you don't like the project, you can turn it down. you don't want to give the extra floors, you don't want to give the extra exception, you don't have to. and i think you should do the right thing and continue it as well for [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? okay, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, a question for staff first on the noticing issue. i mean, i'm down there almost every night exercising, going by there and i saw the signs. but i was looking for them because i knew it was coming up. but how about noticing or has notice been sent to the neighborses? >> thank you, commissioner. as with many types of projects we have, there is basically a three-prong noticing approach. there is the published ad that goes in the newspaper 20 days prior to the hearing.
the posters that you saw inside and there were two posters for this particular project, one for each frontage at mission and fremont. finally there is the mail notification which was sent out also 20 days prior to the hearing. all property owners within 300 feet and we were able to verify [speaker not understood] of this issue that mail was sent to 45 fremont street associates specifically. so, all three of those notification methodologies were satisfied in this case. >> okay, thank you. then i have a question for project sponsor in regards to the fee issue. now, correct me if i'm wrong, but there's a difference between the fees that were deferred on the first approval because it was approved during the period of time the fee deferral was in place. and the addition is happening now during a time when the fee
deferral is no longer in place. so, is there a case or do you agree that perhaps the fee should be assessed on the upper additional floors? >> we were aware that the fee deferral program had expired. we were not aware that dbi took a position that because the project has already started that we could, in fact, defer our fees, which means that we had expected that we would probably be paying them. i have not had a thorough conversation with the developer who generally developers opt to defer if they can. my own view is all that deferral money is going to be paid and that cycle is going to be starting soon. so, the deferral doesn't really mean that much. we're paying all the fees whether they're deferred or not. >> thank you, mr. rubin. >> i don't know if that --
>> that's exactly my point. some speakers intimated that the fees were not being paid. even during the deferral, it was a deferral. and there you're getting them at a later time rather than at the times it was in place. i mean, this is subject to interpretation by the city attorney or others as to whether the fees would all be deferred or whether the fees for the lower part of the building would be deferred, although they may be coming into play fairly soon with the deferral gone and then the other ones might be due at an earlier time. but i don't think we can answer that question at this time. >> i can't, but i could speak to the request for the continuance if i were asked a question about it. >> yeah, what about the continuance? >> one of the -- when i said this is a bit of an unusual circumstance but not an untoward one, one of the unusual aspects of it is we're building a building right now.
we need to know whether we're going to add those floors or not. we can't really wait. we have to account for them which is why we've been working hard to get back to the planning commission as soon as we could. and i say this with the most respect possible, but, you know, because i know tom and bob for many, many years and have worked with them on a variety of issues. i thought tom was going to say when he started talking about posters that there weren't any. he said they were there. so -- >> thank you, mr. rubin. precisely my point. i mean, i think that we have a company that has decided to lease an entire new building and most of the buildings are spec. this is not spec. so, that's something we should be very happy about. and the fact that they actually need more square footage than what it was approved is even a better sign. so, it's employment, it's jobs, it's taxes, it's a lot of good
theirstion and we don't want to jeopardize it by, you know, i'm not saying you to approve it just because of those things. but if it is appropriate, then i think we should do it at the earliest possible time because construction has begun. the suring is being done. they can modify the foundations to make them structurally sound for the building up to 30 floors. and i always thought, you know, i thought it was a great design when it came up a couple years ago. why a dumb pi four-story building with these larger buildings around it? actually the taller building is architecturally a lot more pleasant. it makes it look thinner. it makes it fit in with the other buildings. and from being down there a lot. i'm trying to figure out where you can see the sky when you're standing on the street. because even if there's no building there as is now the case, you're blocked off by the buildings around there. so, you're really not going to see much sky. maybe if you're up in another building looking beyond this there might be a possibility there would be a view corridor
somewhere, but i can't figure out where it is. and also in terms of the appropriate height, you've got 1100 square feet transbay tower thattiontion going to be starting any time. you have 700 feet plus. i guess it's 2 81 fremont. i expect -- i'm not sure of the exact address, but it's ron paul building that's a couple more blocks up the street. and i understand there also has been a sale made and there's towers that are being planned, although they haven't been approved by us, but they're zoned for areas around 350 fremont that would also go into that same. so, i think this building is very modest in height in comparison to what's being proposed and approved and that was kind of what we planned when we did this whole transbay, that there would be a series of towers. so, i'm in favor of the project. it makes total sense to me to see what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. to those who came and testified
about the increase in height and were concerned about it, i think that that time passed a long time ago when we approved the transit center district plan. and i don't know if you're aware of that. this particular lot is zoned for 700 feet and that is not the endv of it because the transbay tower is acting as a central point that's going to be the tallest building. but then there are heights that have already been -- at least in zoning, not the buildings that are approved in a cascading fashion down from there, 700, 600, 500 feet, they're all around you guys. and if you want to call that a done deal, i would say it was a done deal in plan. but as commissioner antonini mentioned, there will be further approvals for the actual building designs themselves. but they have -- they will be coming in and i can't say whether they'll go to the full
height, but they do have the right to go up to those heights that have already been zoned so that's just by way of background and shorenstein knows all of this. ~ that. that's not their particular concern, i don't think. it's just the noticing aspect and probably not having enough time to look at it. but on the other hand, the other issues of shadow, perhaps wind, that was also studied in the transit center district plan, environmental impact report which has also been certified. so, in some ways i think that -- i can't speak for the rest of the commissioners, but those issues probably, in our minds, have already been vetted and kind of taken care of, if you want to put it that way. i don't have a problem with the additional six stories. i think some of us would even like to have seen it go higher, but we're getting what we're
getting. the only question i have, let's just settle this. if the city attorney can weigh in on the fee deferral, i understand -- here's my view. i think the fee deferral applies to the project as it's being constructed. i think the fee deferral does not apply to the six floors that we, if we approved, because i think the action is taken today. if it's taken today or whenever we continue it, and the fee deferral program is not in effect. and because it's the same property, you know, and it's already been approved once and it's part of that, may introduce a separate interpretation. but normally i think when projects come in, they're subject to the rules and regulations as they are in place at the time. but i defer to the city attorney. >> deputy city attorney [speaker not understood]. so, the fee deferral program
you're referring to was established by legislation by the board of supervisors which then got legislation lapse. but when it was established, the department of building inspection was establisheds as the city department that would administer the fee deferral program. so, the question of whether the project is in the fee deferral program or not and what portion of the project it applies to is really within the primary jurisdiction of the department of building inspection which would make the determination of what's appropriate for this project. >> slightly wrongly, the program lives in the admin code, it did you tellxctiontionv live in the planning code. admin code gave that jurisdiction to dbi. i will say that the additional floors that are proposed to you today are paying the transit center impact fees which were not in place when the original
project was approved and permitted. >> as a follow-up question to that, perhaps to mr. rubin's project sponsor. in terms of the deferred fees, when do you expect those to be paid to the city? because those are based on, is it occupancy? >> deferral fees. >> the first certificate of occupancy. we expect that to be early 2015. >> okay, thank you. >> just to clarify. so, the transit center fees would be -- they're at the current height or at the proposed height? based on -- >> transit center for the additional floors. the original building was before the transit center plan was adopted. >> got it. >> commissioner hillis. >> so, i would agree with commissioner sugaya. i'm supportive of the six
floors [speaker not understood] the 700 feet we have zoned for. my question back to the fee deferral, i'm confused. the staff report, i believe the project sponsor's understanding before today was the fees on the additional six floors weren't deferable. you were going to pay those. is that correct? the new transbay fees -- >> that is what i said. that was our assumption. we've learned today that they are deferable. and being a developer, we'd like to defer them. [laughter] >> right. but if the economics of the deal were based on the fact you weren't going to defer them, i mean, we were going to get them -- will you continue on with the deferral or are you willing to nonapply for the deferral for the remaining six floors? >> it's not something that i'm free to simply say. i need to talk to the clients
at kill roy and make that decision. they certainly don't want to create ill will with the planning commission, but it's an economic decision. >> right, it's economic, although you're basing whatever pro forma you did in the economic space of not deferring the fees. you know, that's the report we got. i didn't want to continue this. you want to get the project entitled and built and i think you have support on this commission to get it built. we all came into this hearing with the understanding you weren't going to defer fees or they weren't deferable. why don't we just say you're not going to defer them. [laughter] >> realizing that, yes. >> good evening, commissioners and director ram. i'm chris with kill roy realty. i'm sawyer, we will not defer the fees on the additional stories. >> okay, appreciate it. [speaker not understood]. >> commissioner wu. >> i think that addresses the issue i was asking. i was going to ask the city
attorney if we could make a suggestion to dbi what they want to do. >> [speaker not understood] city attorney. you can give recommendation to dbi as to how they interpret their fee deferral program. >> to the maker of the motion, are you interested? >> but they've agreed not to defer. either way. >> so, this is probably one of the few projects that will have this situation anyway because it's just they're coming back for this. i think other projects will either be clean in coming to us now or they already have their fees deferred and they won't be coming back and asking us. >> we can move to approve the project sponsor not to seek the fee deferral for the additional six [speaker not understood]. >> second. >> i guess i have a question about that, though. do we happen to know of other project sites that were zoned that could come back to us a second time around? >> regarding the fee deferral
program? >> yes, projects we might have approved already in that area who -- the previous entitlements but were part of the transit district plan per se but now could get additional height and wouldn't come back to us. >> oh, additional height. >> commissioner borden, one project that comes to mind with a similar case would be the 41 that he'll a street project. that being a residential project is not necessarily subject to the same extensive types of fees, but it is subject to some fees ~ and they have submitted an application for an increased height over what they were entitled for. that's the only one that comes to mind immediately. there may be others out there, but that's the next example i could point to. >> okay, great, great. i know you addressed the notice issue. i want to be respectful. the standardized procedure that we do for all projects basically for this one as well? >> that is correct. it's the same notification for procedures that we follow for
all projects. on the specific subject of the mailed notice, typically project sponsors will go to a company to collect the records and perform sort of the [speaker not understood] mailing addresses of everybody within the 300 foot radius. but those companies pull from assessor records. so, whatever the assessor record is on file for particular property owner, that is the label that results and then that's where our mail gets sent out to. >> could i ask the director would you look further into commissioner borden's question? i think it's a good one. one off the top of your head, it's only a few others -- there were more than a few. what we could be taking an action on could be precedent seth. i just want to make sure there isn't a host of opportunities there to come back to us here. >> i think on the projects you've approved, 41 tehema did not max out the height limit but 141 [speaker not understood] did max out.
they could [speaker not understood] additional floors. other projects in the transit center you have not approved yet. >> okay. i'm curious. these are the ones that are on the fringe that may be opted out not to participate in the transit center plan that could be coming back to -- >> i guess conceivably the other one is 222 second. they did not express any interest being added to the pipe. i guess that is conceivable. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second on the floor to approve the project with conditions recognizing that the project sponsor will not be seeking a fee deferral for the additional floors. office of management and budget that motion commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. commissioners, it will place you on item 17 for case no. 2013.0707dd for 133 17th avenue
, request for discretionary review. >> good evening, commissioner. i am david lindsay from department staff. this case consists of two requests for discretionary review of a project that proposes a horizon' addition at the rear of a two-story over basement single-family house located at 133 17th avenue in the inner richmond. the horizontal addition consists of a two-story component that extends approximately 10-1/2 feet beyond the buildings' main rear wall. in a one story over crawl space component with a bay window that expands approximately 10 feet further. the proposed addition would be setback approximately eight feet from the south property line and approximately three feet on the north property line. the subject property approximately 20 million feet wide by 120 feet deep is flat and located in the middle of
the block between lake and california streets. except for several rm-1 zone lots california street at the end of the block, the block is zoned rh-2 and is comprised of a mix of modest size single-family houses and some two unit and two multi-family buildings. the subject building is in the middle of a group of several single-family houses with similar front and side setbacks creating a pattern of spacing and design on the block base. the subject property and the adjacent property to the south each contain garage structures in their rear yards accessible through a shared driveway. since the commission packets went out last week, the department received two e-mails and one phone call from neighbors in support of the project. and i'll pass copies of the e-mails for the commission's review. >> okay. first d-r requestor. oh, i'm sorry.
>> the d-r requestors are the immediate adjacent property owners to the south and north. [speaker not understood] is a resident of 137 17th avenue. the property to the south. and [speaker not understood] is the owner of 129 17th avenue, the property to the north. ms. seto's concerns include the following. that the project is incompatible with surrounding buildings with respect to depth and negatively affects the mid-block open space. that the project's form is incompatible with her building with respect to the shared driveway. that the project negatively affects views of the mid-block open space. and that the project would negatively affect the ability to have a garden or landscaping in the rear yard. mr. zucker's concerns include the following. that the project sets a precedent for futurer development in terms of
building depth, that the project in conjunction with the existing nonconforming garage structure negatively affects light and air and air to his property and that the project will cast shadows on his property. the residential design team reviewed the project following the submittal of the d-r request and made the following comments. the rdt found the proposed horizontal addition to be appropriately setback from both side property lines to reduce any negative effects to adjacent properties. the massing of the addition to be appropriately stepped down to reduce any negative effects to the mid-block open space. the rdt noted that the project does not propose any changes to the shared driveway width. the rdt concluded that the project does not contain nor create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and staff recommends that the commission not take d-r and approve the project as proposed. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. okay.
first d-r requestor, you have 5 minutes. good afternoon. my name is [speaker not understood]. i'm here on behalf of myself, my husband david who are the current residents and my mother jane [speaker not understood] the property owner. this apartment has been our family's primary residence the last 30 years. [speaker not understood] have a unique situation. we are undeniably conjoined esthetically, gee ranch li and subsequently in its use. both houses are detached and have the garages back, meaning they share a narrow driveway between the houses. the access shares a backyard and garages. after communication with the applicants who are unable to come to an agreement regarding the two reasons why we filed for discretionary review, first, the scale of the addition is not compatible with the surrounding buildings. all of the houses in the mid-block extend approximately
the same rear depth. the applicant's addition would extend that minimum eight feet past any solid wall structure on the entire mid-block. it is not respected to establish mid-block to open space. the extension of the building line along with the second story addition would severely [speaker not understood] and enjoyment of open space for neighbors on both sides. the proposed extension would also establish precedence for solid well buildings to be built in the mid-block open space. as you can see right here, this is the proposed rear extension line. this is the current rear extension line the furthest in our area which happens to be our building as well. the furthest solid line, and this is the rear extension of
the other d-r applicant requestor's property. the project applicant has expressed that they are building out an already established line which i would understand to be our back stairwell. this should be considered as incomparable as their addition would be a large second story solid structure. the second reason why we are filing for discretionary review is that the form of the addition is not compatible with the adjacent building, our building, particularly in respect to the shared driveway. the proposed addition would create an additional length of approximately eight feet, about 17% an already hard to navigate driveway. this driveway both parties and their house guests use to navigate to the garage. even at the widest portions of
the garages there are marks from damage from entry. i have pictures of that. you can imagine. adding proposed eight feet of extra obstacles whether it be a drop down stairwell into the basement or curb blocking that would create a hazardous driveway condition entering and exiting the garden. the limited mobility of each car will impact the amount of cars able to be parked in the backyard. therefore, reducing the number of off-street parking spaces as well because of our unique situation, both property owners must build accordingly to resanta fethctiontion and maintain the integrity of use and property value. in closing we recognize the diligence and effort that goes into approving plans. however, there are some nuances that the residential guidelines are not able to catch that are [speaker not understood]. my mother and i are long-time san francisco residents, native. both in the real estate business. we know the effort it takes for a project of this scope. and we're neighbors, after all. so, we wouldn't have filed for
discretionary review for any small reason. the experience we're trying to convey is to see it in person. and on july 18, on the recommendation from [speaker not understood] at the planning department, i sent an invitation to all the members of the planning commission to come and view it in preparation for this hearing. on july 30th there [speaker not understood] which i understand there are probably a lot of requests for these kind of viewings. additionally after june 17th the announcement that an abbreviated d-r analysis would occur, there has been no response from the project applicants or sponsor to move forward in a collaborative effort. so, we come here in hopes that we can come to terms with some sort of understanding. our recommendations, our actionable recommendations are two thing. one, set the addition back to a building line that is consistent with the neighboring buildings which is 10 feet 5 inches from the eastern most
existing building line. that you can probably see from the [speaker not understood] we're counting from the back, not the stairway. and the second one is to set the addition off the -- >> ma'am, your time is up. >> eight feet off the proline [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> thank you. ~ second d-r requestor. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is michael zucker. my wife and i are the owners of the property immediately to the north of the subject property that we're discussing this afternoon. our family has lived in this house since 2002. we have thoroughly enjoyed the neighborhood. it is a unique part of the city where we have side yards as well as rear yards and